As I read reactions to the Coalition’s planned changes to international education (which The Koala News’ contributor Tracy Harris expertly summarised) I was unsurprised to see the shock, disappointment and deep concern in the sector.
If implemented, the Coalition’s planned caps and substantial increases in student visa fees will have a significant, negative impact on the sector. Jobs will be lost, colleges will close and some universities will be under enormous budget pressure.
Prof. Andrew Norton, Alan Olsen, and I all took slightly different approaches to our analysis of the Coalition’s policy proposals – but, along with the leaders of the key sector peak bodies, we all pointed out the damage the changes would cause.
Unsurprisingly the headlines in the mainstream media all picked up on the figures and statements of the sector peak bodies and hence the general public was told how many billions “the economy” and “universities” would lose.
And as a consequence, in the middle of an election campaign focussed on cost-of-living issues, at a time when universities’ reputations have been damaged by pervasive wage underpayment issues and what are perceived by many as excessive Vice Chancellor salaries, there was no cut through and little questioning of the Coalition.
If the policy announcement had any impact at all on the general public, my guess is that it would have been heard as “the Coalition will be tougher on international student numbers than Labor and that’s probably good because fewer migrants will make rents cheaper…”
The sector knows the claim about rentals is either completely untrue or so minimal as to be almost insignificant but the broader point is that a major threat to the sector (English language schools and private VET in particular, and also many universities) has likely not shifted a single vote amongst people outside the international education sector.
Which begs the question, as Tim Winkler argued, “Why is it, when we knew the attack on international student numbers was coming, that we put up the same people with the same unsuccessful arguments in the hope of achieving a different level of influence during the election campaign?
Why did leaders in the sector not say – “this policy cannot be supported because it will stop more Australian students going to university”.
As I pointed out last year (before Labor’s caps were announced and at a time when some leaders in the sector were recommending a cap of 30% be used), setting a cap as a proportion of something rather than an absolute figure means that actual numbers can still grow, and therefore in this case the number of international students can grow if the number of domestic students grows, even as the proportion of international to domestic students stays the same.
Allow me to explain:
- if ‘Australia’s Best University’ currently enrols 50,000 students and the government sets a cap of 30% international students – it will be allowed to enrol 15,000 international students and 35,000 domestic students
- if ‘Australia’s Best University’ enrols more domestic students (either as government provides more funding for undergraduate places to meet well-documented future demand for more skilled workers[1], and/or as more domestic postgraduate students, paying for their own studies, enrol to upskill or reskill as their jobs change) then ‘Australia’s Best University’ will also be able to enrol more international students
- so if, for example, the government provides funding for another 2,000 domestic undergraduate students at ‘Australia’s Best University’ and the university also attracts 1,500 additional postgraduate FEE-HELP students – it will enrol 38,500 domestic students and be able to therefore enrol an extra 1,500 international and still be at its 30% cap. That is: 16,500 international students and 38,500 domestic students as the university’s total enrolments grow to 55,000.
And when you multiply the extra 1,500 international students studying at ‘Australia’s Best University’ across all universities, plus the extra students that universities which are currently below their cap are able to enrol, you very quickly see that a cap of 25% can and will lead to increases in international students each year – unless you also stop universities enrolling more domestic students.
When asked by journalists how he would prevent universities “gaming the cap” (by enrolling more domestic students), the Opposition Leader is reported by the Australian Financial Review as saying that would be dealt with in his government’s funding agreements with universities.
So the question the sector should be asking, and which I am sure would be of concern and interest to many parents and young voters, is will the Coalition’s cap on international students stop more local students going to university?
I’m sure the answers would also be of interest to the business sector. Where are those extra qualified workers going to come from?
Just three days after the Coalition’s announcement, Engineers Australia released modelling showing a need for an extra 60,000 STEM graduates in the next decade to meet skill shortages. Is the Coalition saying those extra undergraduate places won’t be funded?
And what about the mid-career professional voters looking to do some postgraduate studies in the next year or two to help their careers flourish as the world of work changes? Is the Coalition seriously suggesting that they will prevent Australians who intend to fund their own studies from enrolling at university?
Perhaps the Coalition intends to force these extra postgraduate students, and the extra engineering and other skilled undergraduate students the economy will need, to enrol at universities which currently have fewer than 25% international students… to avoid the increase in international students that will occur if these prospective students instead choose universities which are at or near their 25% cap?
These are the real-life implications the policies announced by the Opposition Leader will have on everyday voters, and these are the message the sector’s leaders should be focussed on.
It will take a long time for the international education sector as a whole, and many universities, to win back the public’s trust. That’s a column for another day.
Right now though, in the middle of an election campaign, the international education sector’s focus should be directly on domestic students.
Photo by Kiros Amin on Unsplash
[1] For example, the Universities Accord Panel’s final report, or Jobs and Skills Australia’s Employment Projections
